Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Thanks Carsten. In English spiritual does not exclusively have a sense of the divine so of course an atheist or an agnostic can be spiritual and do things or experience things in a spiritual way.

Well, at least they say they can -- although, again, the large majority of these "spiritual but not religious" people can't really articulate what they mean by "spiritual". In such cases, I've found, it is likely that different people are using the same catch-all term to refer to very different things.

It's also not a matter of the English language, but of a cultural usage. The term "spiritual" has become popular in American culture, and possibly in some other English-speaking cultures as well, as a catch-all phrase for pretty much anything that feels good and that doesn't necessarily have a specific physical agent. That's not really what the word means, it's just a popular contemporary usage.

Quote:

Niall Matthews wrote:

It might be better to make a distinction between spiritual and philosophical anyway.

I'd say so, although as that implies more examination of what exactly you mean by those terms, I don't think this approach will be very popular.

Quote:

Niall Matthews wrote:

But your point is very interesting. If someone who did not have any sense of spirituality (your example of a person coming to the dojo without it) did aikido for a long time would that person develop one?

Short answer: no.
Long answer: except in rare cases, aikido is not a spiritual or esoteric practice, no matter how many people want to label it as such. It is not taught as such, it is not conducted as such. Many people claim that aikido is a spiritual experience for them, and I'm not going to argue with them (although I'd lay money that they're using the term "spiritual" in the broad sense I mentioned earlier), but insofar as this is true, there's nothing special about aikido that makes it so. Aikido is one of many activities -- practically an infinite number of them -- that can be a catalyst for change in an individual who is ready to make that change. People who are ready to change their lives (sometimes consciously, but much more often unconsciously), and who live as most of us posting to this board do, in an environment rich in opportunities, will find a catalyst. It could be aikido. It could be walking. It could be sitting meditation. It could be working in a soup kitchen. It doesn't have to be an activity that has that "spiritual" marketing stamp on it, it doesn't have to be esoteric or exotic. It doesn't have to require you to wear funny clothes or eat funny food or learn ritual phrases in a foreign language. When it happens to someone who's been plodding along through life, they're inclined to credit the particular activity with having some special and unique character that made this magical change happen. I don't think that's true. Aikido is special, sure, but so are innumerable other things. The magic is in the alchemy, not in aikido.

I tried to say that I understand it just the other way round: The name aikido is used for many ways of practice. But this ways of practice have become more and more different.

Who is "they"?

For the first question the answer is obviously:the art's basic principles, techniques, and the art's training menu and method as they were taught by o'sensei. Being aware of your centre, extending and using the ki, leading the oponent without resisting, moving in certain orbits in order to achieve that e.t.c...I have seen a lot of people claiming that they're doing aikido and the only thing in common was the...outfit and sometimes not even that! Blocking, grappling, pulling, pushing, not doing technique just hitting, claiming there is no ki, selling pills with ki( no kidding!)...you name it. And of course none of the above is aikido, yet the instructors were claiming that they were teaching different styles of aikido. So is it their word against mine? Probably not. One has to take a look at real aikido teachers (o'sensei, Steven Seagal sensei, the current doshu Moriteru Ueshiba just to name a few, there are others as well of course) to see the difference.

As for the second question, "who is they?"...The teachers who are claiming that they are doing another style of aikido than the original of course. They chopped aikido to pieces and then chose to study only what they like. They are not practicing the way o'sensei taught and then they are wondering why it is so difficult to achieve his level in aikido. Where's the logic in that? It really beats the hell out of me!

They are not practicing the way o'sensei taught and then they are wondering why it is so difficult to achieve his level in aikido. Where's the logic in that? It really beats the hell out of me![quote]

That's a valid point Yannis.

I notice the general consensus is that O'Sensei was not a good teacher. Of course I thoroughly disagree even if the majority think so.

What it does as far as I can see is open the door to bad students led by those who say O'Sensei was a bad teacher.

It opens the door to lots of intellectual claptrap and 'new' ways bringing back the 'old'

No wonder you're confused. Bad students always look for a 'better' teacher, a new way, the misssing withheld secrets. It's never anything to do with them. That's the simplicity of it really in my view.

I notice the general consensus is that O'Sensei was not a good teacher. Of course I thoroughly disagree even if the majority think so.

What it does as far as I can see is open the door to bad students led by those who say O'Sensei was a bad teacher. It opens the door to lots of intellectual claptrap and 'new' ways bringing back the 'old'

No wonder you're confused. Bad students always look for a 'better' teacher, a new way, the misssing withheld secrets. It's never anything to do with them. That's the simplicity of it really in my view.

Well, there's simple, and then there's simplistic. I'm having a hard time seeing your approach as being any different from just guzzling down the Koolade without questioning the content. You sound more like a cult member than a critical thinker. Aikido is not a cult -- please stop making it into one.

Once again, you may end up at the correct answer, but if so, IMO you're doing it purely by accident. The logic that a student who criticizes a teacher must be a bad student is just a bogus as the logic that a teacher whose students aren't all outstanding is a bad teacher.

[quote=Graham Christian;290866]They are not practicing the way o'sensei taught and then they are wondering why it is so difficult to achieve his level in aikido. Where's the logic in that? It really beats the hell out of me!

Quote:

That's a valid point Yannis.

I notice the general consensus is that O'Sensei was not a good teacher. Of course I thoroughly disagree even if the majority think so.

What it does as far as I can see is open the door to bad students led by those who say O'Sensei was a bad teacher.

It opens the door to lots of intellectual claptrap and 'new' ways bringing back the 'old'

No wonder you're confused. Bad students always look for a 'better' teacher, a new way, the misssing withheld secrets. It's never anything to do with them. That's the simplicity of it really in my view.

Regards.G.

Exactly! Thank you very much, it's good to know that there are people in aikido who understand all of that. O'sensei of course was a good teacher. The problem is that many of his students tried to lead aikido in different directions from what his vision was, after his death...

Well, there's simple, and then there's simplistic. I'm having a hard time seeing your approach as being any different from just guzzling down the Koolade without questioning the content. You sound more like a cult member than a critical thinker. Aikido is not a cult -- please stop making it into one.

Once again, you may end up at the correct answer, but if so, IMO you're doing it purely by accident. The logic that a student who criticizes a teacher must be a bad student is just a bogus as the logic that a teacher whose students aren't all outstanding is a bad teacher.

I'll excuse the first paragraph as it sounds like the reverse to me.

The critical mind saves one from taking responsibility for their own actions. A bad student blames the book or the noise or something other than themselves. Simple.

When you are as good as your teacher then you may, just may have the right to criticise. No escape from that truth I'm afraid.

But if you believe that then so be it. Don't sound very martial to me.

A bad student blames the book or the noise or something other than themselves. Simple.

When you are as good as your teacher then you may, just may have the right to criticise.

Right! A student's work is to constantly practice with the guidance of his teacher, critisism and excuses will get you nowhere, only hard work will lead you to actually learn the art. There is no level that cannot be achieved (even o'sensei's) if one is training seriously, aikido is a difficult martial art, not a simple recreation activity. As for the critical mind, i would say that it is better if one has an OPEN mind, and of course you can't be critical about o'sensei. It's not a matter of religion or cult. He has proven his value long before we were born, so if we want to achieve his skills we'd better pay attention and practice! I like the way you see it, good post! Good luck with your practice...

The critical mind saves one from taking responsibility for their own actions. A bad student blames the book or the noise or something other than themselves. Simple.

I'd say simplistic rather than simple. The logic is flawed in several ways. You're claiming that any time students point to anything outside themselves as a factor in why their training isn't what they want, they are by definition a bad student. This is the "all wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" fallacy. A bad student may blame external causes rather than accepting personal responsibility -- that's one way that being a bad student may play out. But you can't simply reverse the statement -- it's not logically valid.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

When you are as good as your teacher then you may, just may have the right to criticise.

Well, that's a nice safety blanket that will shelter many a bad teacher. If the student wants to criticize, and you don't want to hear their criticism, you invalidate it by saying that they're not "good enough".

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

No escape from that truth I'm afraid.

Truth? You keep making statements as if saying something makes it true. If you say, "Two plus two equals five, no escape from that truth I'm afraid, is is is is is!", will that also become truth?

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

But if you believe that then so be it. Don't sound very martial to me.

More argument by definition and argument from authority. Who died and made you the boss of what "martial" is? A bully club like this only works if your would-be target believes in its power, and I don't.

I'd say simplistic rather than simple. The logic is flawed in several ways. You're claiming that any time students point to anything outside themselves as a factor in why their training isn't what they want, they are by definition a bad student. This is the "all wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" fallacy. A bad student may blame external causes rather than accepting personal responsibility -- that's one way that being a bad student may play out. But you can't simply reverse the statement -- it's not logically valid.

Well, that's a nice safety blanket that will shelter many a bad teacher. If the student wants to criticize, and you don't want to hear their criticism, you invalidate it by saying that they're not "good enough".

Truth? You keep making statements as if saying something makes it true. If you say, "Two plus two equals five, no escape from that truth I'm afraid, is is is is is!", will that also become truth?

More argument by definition and argument from authority. Who died and made you the boss of what "martial" is? A bully club like this only works if your would-be target believes in its power, and I don't.

1) Knows what O'Sensei meant and did without ever being able to read in Japanese what O'Sensei wrote; without ever being a direct student of a direct student.......
2) Knows what Tohei meant and did without ever being able to read in Japanese what Tohei wrote; without ever training directly with Tohei; without ever being a direct student of a direct student.......
3) Has been there and done it.........
4) Has logic and reasoning skills beyond question......
5) Has researched and understood all.....

His videos serve as a testament to all that he knows and can do.....

Regards,

Marc Abrams

ps- that is why most reasoned, intelligent and experienced people stopped responding to the posts. Join the club ! Membership is free.....

It is interesting to me that some of you see that in Graham...I don't.
I also don't understand why it is okay for you to make fun of other peoples videos. Does it make you feel better about yourself?

Mary:

Those are the poster's positions and not my interpretation of his positions. I simply said that his videos spoke for themselves. I don't recall making fun of them in my post. I have in the past, pointed out what I felt were substantial problems with was was being shown. We left it off that I agreed to disagree with the poster's own perceptions of what his videos demonstrated.

As to my level of self-esteem, it is just fine! Thank you for asking though. Was this some kind of attempt to come to faulty conclusions yourself?

Maybe I am reading into some of the threads but it does seems like if people disgree the issues get lost in the egos. (not just yours and mine.) Or maybe yours never does but mine does sometimes...I can only see what I see and then later when someone takes offense at something I have said I can see another side.
It does help my thinking though it can be painful at times.

Maybe I am reading into some of the threads but it does seems like if people disgree the issues get lost in the egos. (not just yours and mine.) Or maybe yours never does but mine does sometimes...I can only see what I see and then later when someone takes offense at something I have said I can see another side.
It does help my thinking though it can be painful at times.

Mary,

I am anything but perfect.... My feces stinks like those from others....

Sometimes, things are not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing and not everything is relative to one's own opinions. I frankly put the poster in the category of knowing enough to not recognizing how little he really knows, while believing too much in what he thinks that he knows. Ushiro Sensei put it very succinctly when he said that the major impediment to learning is what you believe that you already know.

I can't speak for others, but I am frequently going out and testing my knowledge/skill base to find out how little I do know. I frankly love the experience of facing the "beginner's mind" usually experienced at the end of recognizing the "errors in my way." This position is encouraged by my teachers as a means of being acutely aware of how much I have to learn.

I am always humbled by the shared wisdom from some of the posters on this forum who bring to it a wealth of experience, research and knowledge. When the poster in question can finally acknowledge the frequent errors that have been pointed out to him by numerous people (many far superior in skill, knowledge and experience than myself), maybe, just maybe there is some hope for him. These are not things that are relative and/or subject to opinion to agree or disagree with. Those same areas are evidenced (in my own opinion) in the videos posted. Numerous people have attempted, in good faith mind you, to challenge him on the errors of his beliefs. Those same people usually give up after encountering the mistaken "sleight of hand" in trying to pass off differences as merely opinion or just not knowing the "true way" yet. You too, have been caught up in that cycle. I was simply suggesting to you that based upon where he is presently at, "discussions" with him typically end up nowhere useful.

Hugh I disagree about techniques for killing. They are the antithesis of aikido. It does seem a little patronizing to have showing openings to your partner as an aim of your aikido instead of an incidental result of sincere training. But it implies that keiko is a kind of conversation which is a very interesting point.

Been cogitating on this.

First, my initial point was just that if one doesn't show one's partner where he's open, one is doing his partner no favors. Some of those openings may involve killing techniques. Doesn't matter, from this point of view.

But where I really get hung up is when people start clutching their pearls over the idea that somebody might actually get hurt from an aikido technique. Guys! And gals! This is a martial art! It's about hurting people! Yes, aikido always offers a way out, so that hurt is a choice... but it's not always the receiver's choice. A boneheaded attacker can pretty much always get themselves hurt. And you'd have to be a better aikidoka than O-Sensei to never hurt your attacker. And in the real world, you can't have any confidence of defending yourself without getting hurt and without hurting your attacker.

If you avoid this truth, as I think you do if you cling to a view of aikido that's all niceness and bunny rabbits, I don't see it as noble. I see it as hiding your head in the sand. If you've taken on a martial art, IMHO, you've taken on the challenge of tuning yourself into the best weapon you can be. Yeah, for most of us the macho wet dream of beating down the five thugs mugging the helpless old lady isn't ever going to be on the table--and yeah, if we use our training well, most conflicts should never get to the point of violence anyway--but we are training to be able to maintain control in difficult situations. Our strength may be a gift to the world if we use it wisely. Our weakness can never be.

The paradox is, if we follow the path faithfully, we discover that we control a situation by not trying to manipulate it. We discover we can use connection rather than force. We discover that the most irresistible power is the softest.

But there are no short cuts. If you're following a martial way, you have to follow it. Otherwise you just have mush.

I'd say simplistic rather than simple. The logic is flawed in several ways. You're claiming that any time students point to anything outside themselves as a factor in why their training isn't what they want, they are by definition a bad student. This is the "all wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" fallacy. A bad student may blame external causes rather than accepting personal responsibility -- that's one way that being a bad student may play out. But you can't simply reverse the statement -- it's not logically valid.

Well, that's a nice safety blanket that will shelter many a bad teacher. If the student wants to criticize, and you don't want to hear their criticism, you invalidate it by saying that they're not "good enough".

Truth? You keep making statements as if saying something makes it true. If you say, "Two plus two equals five, no escape from that truth I'm afraid, is is is is is!", will that also become truth?

More argument by definition and argument from authority. Who died and made you the boss of what "martial" is? A bully club like this only works if your would-be target believes in its power, and I don't.

Hello Mary.
Firstly may I thank you for the twice you mentioned that you kind of agreed with my conclusions yet feel I must have got there by accident. That made my day.

How can you tell me what I'm saying and then call it flawed logic? Your mistranslation of what I said is not therefore what I said. I said a bad student blames. I infer by that that blame is something a lot of people believe is normal and logical and that I see it differently.

If you can't handle that view then it just shows me you don't understand it, that's fine by me. So it doesn't equal what you say about wood or any such. It equals looking at what blame is and how it is used a lot, in fact most of the time.

It is usually used as a projection of ones own failure onto something else, hence that IS what a bad student does. It's one of the things to recognise. Thus my comment for some would be informative but to those who have never taken this in to account it will seem illogical.

Add on to that that if you take the time to discipline yourself for a certain period of time where you don't allow yourself to blame anything then done as a little project a person can learn a lot about what I said.

Saying 'don't want to hear criticism' is once again a fallacy, it comes from you not me. To welcome criticism and blame and to see through it is my view rather than be led by it or feel insulted or otherwise.

When I mention the word truth I am saying to look at it ie: a bad student always blames and see how often it occurs. By calling it a truth I am saying it always occurs with regards to bad students.

Therefore you have something to inspect, to test the validity of rather than to react against.

Logically therefore you would either say 'I have been watching bad students and find that's true as you say' or else you would say I have been observing bad students and find x, y, z.

Argument by Authority? Maybe you don't like me having an authorative view, a view given with innate certainty. Well that's not my problem. The sky is blue. Authorative. When a person not only sees something but uses it all the time to good results he tends to know what he's talking about. He can share that without being meely mouthed if he so wishes.

It's not insulting so if someone feels insulted then they need to find out why.

But I understand this, you don't get my reasoning even if the conclusion you agree with. That should tell you something.

First, my initial point was just that if one doesn't show one's partner where he's open, one is doing his partner no favors. Some of those openings may involve killing techniques. Doesn't matter, from this point of view.

But where I really get hung up is when people start clutching their pearls over the idea that somebody might actually get hurt from an aikido technique. Guys! And gals! This is a martial art! It's about hurting people! Yes, aikido always offers a way out, so that hurt is a choice... but it's not always the receiver's choice. A boneheaded attacker can pretty much always get themselves hurt. And you'd have to be a better aikidoka than O-Sensei to never hurt your attacker. And in the real world, you can't have any confidence of defending yourself without getting hurt and without hurting your attacker.

If you avoid this truth, as I think you do if you cling to a view of aikido that's all niceness and bunny rabbits, I don't see it as noble. I see it as hiding your head in the sand. If you've taken on a martial art, IMHO, you've taken on the challenge of tuning yourself into the best weapon you can be. Yeah, for most of us the macho wet dream of beating down the five thugs mugging the helpless old lady isn't ever going to be on the table--and yeah, if we use our training well, most conflicts should never get to the point of violence anyway--but we are training to be able to maintain control in difficult situations. Our strength may be a gift to the world if we use it wisely. Our weakness can never be.

The paradox is, if we follow the path faithfully, we discover that we control a situation by not trying to manipulate it. We discover we can use connection rather than force. We discover that the most irresistible power is the softest.

But there are no short cuts. If you're following a martial way, you have to follow it. Otherwise you just have mush.

Hugh.
I hope you don't mind me coming in here but the view you express on harming and this being a martial art I would like to offer a perspective on. It may be only mine, it is what I teach, but I doubt I am the only one with this view.

In my view O'Sensei after his realization and presenting his new way of doing things subtly altered the techniques. I believe most peolple agree with this point.

Now personally, along with what I was taught, that equalled techniques designed not to harm. The path and discipline thereafter led to the discipline (martial) of doing such with definite application.
Therefore I can do a definite shihonage in such a way that the uke cannot be harmed, it's not a matter of he has to do a certain breakfall in order to save himself from harm. In my view the subtleties need to be learned number one knowing the reason and the funny thing is when you learn them this way you find they are inescapable by the uke.

So some may find that hard to believe that the harmless technique is not only more powerful but inescapable in comparison to the ways they used to be done where the aims of those jutsus were to harm or dislocate or maim.

I can do a definite shihonage in such a way that the uke cannot be harmed, it's not a matter of he has to do a certain breakfall in order to save himself from harm.

Now this is something that I want to see and learn. CANNOT be harmed? There is a 0% possibility of uke being harmed, no matter how dumb and self destructive they are? wow! I can't make a cup of coffee with that kind of guarantee, let alone do a definite shihonage.

Okay, I know I am being pedantic and picking on what was most likely a slip of the tongue (or fingers). Did you mean "there is a very small likelihood of uke being harmed"?

Now this is something that I want to see and learn. CANNOT be harmed? There is a 0% possibility of uke being harmed, no matter how dumb and self destructive they are? wow! I can't make a cup of coffee with that kind of guarantee, let alone do a definite shihonage.

Okay, I know I am being pedantic and picking on what was most likely a slip of the tongue (or fingers). Did you mean "there is a very small likelihood of uke being harmed"?

Yes, pedantic.
As I said, harmless techniques. If you understand the principles involved then the word cannot fits. Otherwise I should use the words 'should not'

This is a martial art! It's about hurting people! Yes, aikido always offers a way out, so that hurt is a choice... but it's not always the receiver's choice. A boneheaded attacker can pretty much always get themselves hurt.

I agree Hugh, aikido is a martial art and it has to work. I wouldn't say that it's about hurting people though, but my "objection" is not about the essence of your post but the choise of words, so it's no big deal, i find your opinion very valid. With aikido you have the choise of hurting and the choise of not hurting but sometimes it depends on the specific factors of a conflict and not on what you would like to do. The way i see it applying aikido techniques is about harmony and becoming "one" with the attacker. So if you do a technique like that, it is consistent with aikido regardless of where the attacker is gonna...land! It could be safely on the pavement causing a couple of bruises, it could be through a glass window or even right on his fellow attacker's...knife! But if you move in harmony in a non-resisting way i find no inconsistency with aikido's teachings.

Hello Mary.
Firstly may I thank you for the twice you mentioned that you kind of agreed with my conclusions yet feel I must have got there by accident. That made my day.

It really shouldn't have. Do you know the saying, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"? Or "even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then"? If you're right by accident, that detracts from the validity of your arguments, it doesn't buttress them.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

How can you tell me what I'm saying and then call it flawed logic? Your mistranslation of what I said is not therefore what I said. I said a bad student blames. I infer by that that blame is something a lot of people believe is normal and logical and that I see it differently.

I call it flawed logic because it is. Retroactively restating won't change that.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

If you can't handle that view then it just shows me you don't understand it

Yes, Graham, we know. We know your propensity to characterize anyone who doesn't agree with you as being incapable of understanding, unable to "handle it", and various flavors of just plain wrong. We know all about your absolute belief in your personal infallibility. It makes perfect sense that, having such a belief, you naturally conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must be completely wrong. In retrospect, my earlier question was foolish: with such an unwavering belief in your own omniscience, if you happened to believe that 2+2=5...well, anyone who believes otherwise must obviously be wrong, foolish, "can't handle" the truth.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

Saying 'don't want to hear criticism' is once again a fallacy, it comes from you not me. To welcome criticism and blame and to see through it is my view rather than be led by it or feel insulted or otherwise.

Yes, Graham, I know. You're infallible. You "see through" criticism -- you see it through the inevitably flawed, utterly false, not-infallible-Graham-thought that it is.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

Argument by Authority? Maybe you don't like me having an authorative view, a view given with innate certainty.

My apologies. I have now been enlightened as to your infallible authority. From now on, I'll accept everything you say as absolute truth -- never mind if it's manifestly contradicted by all available evidence and logic.

It really shouldn't have. Do you know the saying, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"? Or "even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then"? If you're right by accident, that detracts from the validity of your arguments, it doesn't buttress them.

I call it flawed logic because it is. Retroactively restating won't change that.

Yes, Graham, we know. We know your propensity to characterize anyone who doesn't agree with you as being incapable of understanding, unable to "handle it", and various flavors of just plain wrong. We know all about your absolute belief in your personal infallibility. It makes perfect sense that, having such a belief, you naturally conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must be completely wrong. In retrospect, my earlier question was foolish: with such an unwavering belief in your own omniscience, if you happened to believe that 2+2=5...well, anyone who believes otherwise must obviously be wrong, foolish, "can't handle" the truth.

Yes, Graham, I know. You're infallible. You "see through" criticism -- you see it through the inevitably flawed, utterly false, not-infallible-Graham-thought that it is.

My apologies. I have now been enlightened as to your infallible authority. From now on, I'll accept everything you say as absolute truth -- never mind if it's manifestly contradicted by all available evidence and logic.